Some people complain "Rift has low FOV"

[Thomixioso]

I noticed several such impressions in forums over the net. " It's like looking through binoculars" and "that it has a low FOV" etc. But I'm thinking now , that they rather thought low FOV in the game than low FOV of RIFT optics.

What do you think?

[Jose]

I think all the hype got peoples' expectations too high. People are expecting their entire field of view, which is around 180 degrees, to be filled. Even the original kickstarter video showed images suggesting that the entire field of view would be filled. It's not. It's currently about 90 degrees horizontal and that is definitely low compared to 180 degrees. But it's the best out there that's available to normal people.

[Kazioo]

They should try a professional, heavy $30K VR helmet and compare the FOV

I also agree that Oculus VR is a little guilty.
This was almost like a false advertising.

[Machinima]

I also agree that Oculus VR is a little guilty.
This was almost like a false advertising.

Well they we're pretty clear that the FOV was 110 diagonal, I remember having forum discussions at the time and wondering what the relevance of a diagonal FOV was when most gamers only understand FOV in terms of horizontal. I definitely recall that at the time some people were saying that 110 diagonal was better than 110 horizontal, simply because they didn't understand the terms.

I know Palmer wanted to emphasise the vertical FOV so I guess thats why he went with diagonal for the kickstarter pitch, still seemed to cause more confusion than it was worth though.

[geekmaster]

If you can get your eyes close enough to the lenses that you see a little of the borders on all sides, you will see a circle defined by the lens circumference, with a little of the display edges clipped off, and a lot more clipped off in the center than on the sides (about 45 pixels per eye of non-overlap). You see about 800 vertical and about 640 horizontal PER EYE. However (and this is important) after stereoscopic fusion, you brain compensates for the center dividers and you see a much wider field of view that includes all of the inner blocked pixels (from the other eye) plus all of the outer non-overlapped pixels from both eyes (about 90 extra pixels). With both eyes open, it looks like you are seeing non-overlapped 800-pixel diameter circles for each eye. And the lens warp stretches the outer pixels out to about 110-degree FoV (in all directions, due to circular lenses).

Because I see about the same amount of edge clipping (only while looking directly forward) on top and bottom and outer edges, I think that the lens cups are mounted about equal distances from top and bottom and outer edges (sacrificing more of the inner edge, where non-overlap compensates for otherwise missing pixels).

Of course using different lenses, and different distance between lens and eye, will reduce the total FoV. Wearing eyeglasses in the Rift DK will certainly and significantly reduce your available FoV. Even though my eyelashes brush my lenses, and the longest A-cup lenses are not a good focus for me, I selected them specifically for their maximum FoV (compared to the other lenses).

[oculusfan]

Like Geekmaster touched on, the inconsistent reviews could be due to different lens cups and different distances from eye to lens causing a variance in FOV. That's is part of it. I'm sure varying expectations are also playing a role in this phenomenon.

[WiredEarp]

Theres a tolerance component as well. When I first put on the Rift, I found the FOV quite acceptable. After using it a while, I find the FOV barely acceptable now, simply because i'm used to it and notice its limits more.

I'd love the consumer version to have an even greater FOV!

[Pingles]

I keep meaning to make a ringed target for the screen so you can see what your Rift shows and compare it to what your PC screen shows.

[Pingles]

I just took a quick screenshot of the Corridor demo and my Rift view is only a few pixels less than the actual PC screen.

I wonder if the FOV complaints are coming from people who have the lenses at a bad spot?

[Zoide]

I also agree that Oculus VR is a little guilty.
This was almost like a false advertising.

This. I really think they should take that down or fix it. It's still very misleading, and it makes it look like the FoV is > 180 degrees.

[V8Griff]

I also agree that Oculus VR is a little guilty.
This was almost like a false advertising.

This. I really think they should take that down or fix it. It's still very misleading, and it makes it look like the FoV is > 180 degrees.

That's only misleading if you don't look at it properly and if you do it's quite clear what they're showing, especially if you see the animated version that is attempting to show latency in comparison to other HMDs and their tracking.

This is a continual issue with HMDs, it was the same in the '90s, to those (the majority) with little or no experience of what is available elsewhere, especially at this price point and their unrealistic expectations.

[Paladia]

It does have a low FOV compared to the human eye. However, getting a high FOV with a flat screen isn't viable.

Walk up to any empty wall in the house and stick your nose to it. Regardless of how big the wall is, it won't cover your entire field of view horisontally even if you just look straight ahead. If you look to the sides, it's even worse.

So even if the Rift had a 10 meter wide screen it wouldn't be enough to cover the horisontal fov of the eyes. However, even a small sized curved screen could accomplish that with ease. I really do hope they will end up getting a curved screen for the consumer version, at least then the FOV issue can be solved once and for all.

[V8Griff]

I really do hope they will end up getting a curved screen for the consumer version, at least then the FOV issue can be solved once and for all.

There you go, my point about people always wanting more is proven.

That said I agree with your point.

(Not having a go at you Paladia, just using you as an example )

[gray]

I'd suggest it's also due to people having the Rift set up incorrectly, if you are using A cups have the screen all the way in you aren't going to see very much and could fit the 'binoculars' description. You should get a view smaller than wearing an actual ski mask but no where near binoculars.

[Paladia]

I really do hope they will end up getting a curved screen for the consumer version, at least then the FOV issue can be solved once and for all.

There you go, my point about people always wanting more is proven.

There's no need to prove it, it has already been proven. If it wasn't for mankinds desire to improve we would still be content with living in caves.

[squibbfire]

hmmmm maybe curved screens will help

[V8Griff]

I really do hope they will end up getting a curved screen for the consumer version, at least then the FOV issue can be solved once and for all.

There you go, my point about people always wanting more is proven.

There's no need to prove it, it has already been proven. If it wasn't for mankinds desire to improve we would still be content with living in caves.

You miss my point.

We're talking about VR here (not mankind's progress through the ages) and people who analyse the HMD rather than accept the current limitations miss the point that this is a major step forward at a very low pricepoint. We all know Oculus are working on developments to improve the whole experience but the hardware is unlikely to be adopting curved, high resolution screens with translational and positional tracking at $300 any time soon.

It was partly unrealistic high expectations that contributed to the dearth in significant and properly funded consumer VR development after the Virtuality led '90s era.


(I'd like to be proved wrong on that though )

[Paladia]

You miss my point.

We're talking about VR here (not mankind's progress through the ages) and people who analyse the HMD rather than accept the current limitations miss the point that this is a major step forward at a very low pricepoint. We all know Oculus are working on developments to improve the whole experience but the hardware is unlikely to be adopting curved, high resolution screens with translational and positional tracking at $300 any time soon.

It was partly unrealistic high expectations that contributed to the dearth in significant and properly funded consumer VR development after the Virtuality led '90s era.


(I'd like to be proved wrong on that though )

And I think the Rift has to improve quite a bit for the consumer version, else it will cause disappointment and fail; and we'll have to wait another 10 years before anyone dares attempt it again.

As you said yourself, people have high expectations. You won't be able to lower those, all you can do is to try your best to meet, or even exceed them. VR can't afford another disappointment.

[V8Griff]

And I think the Rift has to improve quite a bit for the consumer version, else it will cause disappointment and fail; and we'll have to wait another 10 years before anyone dares attempt it again.

As you said yourself, people have high expectations. You won't be able to lower those, all you can do is to try your best to meet, or even exceed them. VR can't afford another disappointment.

I agree it needs to improve and it surely will, but the high expectations will still exceed what is possible at this pricepoint.

[Randomoneh]

How about we determine the absolute maximum possible FOV, in relation to the optics.

What is the lens diameter?

[Lookforyourhands]

FOV is not 'low'.

FOV is amazing, mind you it could be a little bit bigger and we wouldn't complain.

[Pokey]

It does have a low FOV compared to the human eye. However, getting a high FOV with a flat screen isn't viable.

Walk up to any empty wall in the house and stick your nose to it. Regardless of how big the wall is, it won't cover your entire field of view horisontally even if you just look straight ahead. If you look to the sides, it's even worse.

So even if the Rift had a 10 meter wide screen it wouldn't be enough to cover the horisontal fov of the eyes. However, even a small sized curved screen could accomplish that with ease. I really do hope they will end up getting a curved screen for the consumer version, at least then the FOV issue can be solved once and for all.

Can't you also solve this with optics?

The lens can curve around your head a little, instead of the screen.

I don't have any expertise here, but it seems like an optics solution would be more viable in terms of cost, since curved screens are brand new tech.

[ido]

FOV is the best on the market, unless you are willing to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for something like a Wide 5 for something.

It's amazing, and will only improve with time. People need to get their expectations in check if they are expecting a holodeck for your face. Either way, it's still -very- immersive and amazing.

[jf031]

I personally don't want the Rift to cost $2000+, so I'd be fine with the first consumer Rift not having a curved screen.

edit: Paladia: Oculus is trying to keep the Rift at $300 or less. A curved screen WILL NOT be in the first consumer Rift, unless the first consumer Rift is still about 3+ years away.

edit 2: Eh, I might be wrong about this. I had assumed that curved OLED was very difficult to do, but LG is supposedly going to have some sort of portable device with a curved screen this year.

I'll just admit that I have no idea what sort of screen the first consumer Rift will have, then. That's always been the case, anyway.

[Paladia]

I personally don't want the Rift to cost $2000+, so I'd be fine with the first consumer Rift not having a curved screen.

edit: Paladia: Oculus is trying to keep the Rift at $300 or less. A curved screen WILL NOT be in the first consumer Rift, unless the first consumer Rift is still about 3+ years away.

I believe the consumer Rift will launch around the time when not only curved screen but possibly even fully flexible screens are if not common at least readily accessable. Hopefully, they'll be able to get their hands on at least a factory-curved screen by then.

[mrklaw]

Curved screen seems expensive and technically complex.

How about two flat screens, each angled so they form a V shape if you looked from above? Would increase FoV and has the potential to increase resolution if you used 2x1080p screens

[foisi]

Curved screen seems expensive and technically complex.

How about two flat screens, each angled so they form a V shape if you looked from above? Would increase FoV and has the potential to increase resolution if you used 2x1080p screens

really ?

[Zoide]

Curved screen seems expensive and technically complex.

How about two flat screens, each angled so they form a V shape if you looked from above? Would increase FoV and has the potential to increase resolution if you used 2x1080p screens

really ?

Hehehehe

BTW, any updates on the InfinitEye?

[Dilip]

mrklaw 2 independent screen has SYnc Issues and work at 60Hz only giving 30Fps max per screen while keeping in sync so are many limitation that why Oculus Opted single Screen in SBS

I too desire 180 digree Horizontal FOV and for that Curved Screen is Only Way
sure they will get cheap over time but they are key to total immersion

I also like high depth 15-20% at centre dicreasing gradually to 2-5% at edge of display this wil pave the way for HUD elements to be placed at sides without worrying 2D compatiblity

Keeping horizontal size of HMD no larger then 5.5" is also required to meet weight and asthetics & Compactiblity but thats diffrent story

I VOUCH CURVED SCREENs

[geekmaster]

You just need to get your head inside a smaller version of one of these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FqAFxbzR6E

[kludd70]

Well, I plead guilty as one of the complainers who was disappointed here. I know the FOV isn't "low" but I've never tried an HMD before and have no idea how FOV is measured and was expecting a bit more. It's still less vision coverage than I get at a movie theater (much less, IMAX), yet I thought other HMDs (the ones with half the FOV) were supposed to be like a theater. It feels just a tad too claustrophobic to provide a convincing simulation for me.

One thing I don't understand is why it uses circular lenses. If they were square there would be no binocular effect and much less of the image would be cut off. Just that alone might make it good enough, but there must be some issue with this, otherwise they would have done it, right?

[MSat]

With some of the experiments using fresnel lenses we've seen around here, I can't help but to think they have a lot, if not the most promise - particularly custom designed units. Even if they're not used to greatly increase the FOV over the Rift, they can at least maintain it without having to set the optics too close to the user's eyes. Another benefit of not having to have them so close to maintain a high FOV is that wearing glasses would be much more practical. Plus, they could likely be curved while the display remains flat.

[neverman]

Well, I plead guilty as one of the complainers who was disappointed here. I know the FOV isn't "low" but I've never tried an HMD before and have no idea how FOV is measured and was expecting a bit more. It's still less vision coverage than I get at a movie theater (much less, IMAX), yet I thought other HMDs (the ones with half the FOV) were supposed to be like a theater. It feels just a tad too claustrophobic to provide a convincing simulation for me.

One thing I don't understand is why it uses circular lenses. If they were square there would be no binocular effect and much less of the image would be cut off. Just that alone might make it good enough, but there must be some issue with this, otherwise they would have done it, right?

You have higher FOV in IMAX than oculus rift ? At what seat?
The circular lenses is the key of oculus rift .

[Dilip]

@geekmaster its already here

http://www.oled-info.com/samsung-youm

Thats bendable display which is easy to bend and eliminates need for curved display as you can decide custom curve within your HMD, i think thats where soul of hollowdeck lies.

Now question is what will be the price? i guess prices can be negotiated if Palmer & Group have large order with them after these things went to mass production stage which does not seem so far.

My serious doubts lies with Samsung or LG them selves may come up with some thing similar (HMD) with their prototypes GALAXY RIFT or OPTIMUS RIFT and make them Native Supported with their Android Platform Productline as both produce awsome powerful android phones which can easily power up small light weight HMDs and with good game base (read SHADOWGUN2 or DEAD TRIGGER2) they can be seriously Armed to Blow.

but that will also pave way for future and i think others like KONIKA MINOLTA or Emagin may come up with competitive products

Biggest benifit of Curved Display is it can cover complete horizontal Fov like nothing else can do besides low power/ Different kind optics can be used to minimize distortion or totally remove requiremet of wrapping thus improve machine performance and also eliminate need of special middleware or use of SDK in development any Nvidia or DDD populor middleware can do justice.

@neverman

Not seen Rift so can not comment but IMAX if you select 2/3 of the way up from first row and centre seat Trust me you have more then your eyes can see its truly NOTHING LIKE ANYTHING i seen spce station 3D and TREX and i literlly need to move my head (horizontal Pan) to completly get secene in my mind more over IMAX also HAS CURVED SCREEN which no other theaters in my city has.

[V8Griff]

Well, I plead guilty as one of the complainers who was disappointed here. I know the FOV isn't "low" but I've never tried an HMD before and have no idea how FOV is measured and was expecting a bit more. It's still less vision coverage than I get at a movie theater (much less, IMAX), yet I thought other HMDs (the ones with half the FOV) were supposed to be like a theater. It feels just a tad too claustrophobic to provide a convincing simulation for me.

One thing I don't understand is why it uses circular lenses. If they were square there would be no binocular effect and much less of the image would be cut off. Just that alone might make it good enough, but there must be some issue with this, otherwise they would have done it, right?

That is a common problem is that people who've never tried an HMD don't appreciate the step forward that the Rift is especially at the price point. Most other HMD's are usually described as 'similar to looking at a 50" TV and 10 feet' or similar.

Fresnel lenses can be any shape but the image quality is reduced so I guess they'd be no use for a near-eye application and probably wouldn't improve the FOV?

So apart from Fresnels I don't think there is such a thing as a square lens. Yes there are optical quality lenses that have a non round outer shape, such as a square, but the actual lens is round, just like your eye. I assume it's all in the properties of light focussing a central point?

[geekmaster]

A round lens can be ground to whatever shape you want, just like is done for eyeglasses at an optical shop. You could even make them square. But that does not change the optical properties of the original unground round lens blanks.

One use for grinding lenses is so that a large lens can be cut down to fit beside the nose and below the eyebrow ridge, so that the lens optical axis is between the eye pupil and the screen center. Shifting the lens without modifying their circumferential shape, such as with the DIY rift 2-inch lenses, pushes the lens optical axis off-center, and such lens shift adds asummetric tangential distortion and increases chromatic aberration, requiring extra software pre-warp complexity.

[Evenios]

i think the wider feild of view may be what they are looking at for the consumer version so in that regaurd it is not false advertising. We just have to have patience.

[braddas]

You have higher FOV in IMAX than oculus rift ? At what seat?

When my girlfriend booked tickets to go see The Hobbit, she accidentally got them 1 row from the front (she thought it was 1 row from the back). When you're that to close the screen it does pretty much fill your vision! Had a sore neck afterwards, though...

This is going to sound a but silly, but I wonder if some of the people that are unhappy with the FOV are trying to look around with their eyes a little too much? I'm sure most people are aware that the measured FOV really only applies when looking ahead, but I found I had to develop the skill of moving my head in VR, when in real life I would have just moved my eyes.

[V8Griff]

This is going to sound a but silly, but I wonder if some of the people that are unhappy with the FOV are trying to look around with their eyes a little too much? I'm sure most people are aware that the measured FOV really only applies when looking ahead, but I found I had to develop the skill of moving my head in VR, when in real life I would have just moved my eyes.

That's not a silly comment, that was exactly what we often encountered back in the '90s when we operated our Virtuality systems.

Initially we would tell people to 'look around' and then they would do exactly what you have just said, keep their head still and move their eyes around in the headset.
So we modified our instructions to something like 'Move your head and look around' and it was surprising how many people suddenly went 'Oh yea!!' as they 'Got it!'

Peoples perception and reactions haven't really moved on in 20 years, the technology has moved on but people haven't

[nixarn]

I think the FOV is amazing. Nobody who I've showed the Rift to have complained about the FOV. Also, what people to complain about is the resolution and a larger FOV would require an even higher resolution.

I still think a 1080p consumer version with the same FOV will be good enough. Otherwise you'd need to much processing power to draw the images while keeping up the framerate.